South America: The Definitive Geographic Location Of Atlantis

Well said, however given the nature of civilizations the complete lack of any artifacts anywhere in SA, Europe or Africa (assuming Plato's story had
any validity) that can be assigned to Atlantis seems to point to your exhaustive work being yet another case for Atlantis that goes no where despite
the comparative geography.

As a very wise man once said:

The only way to prove the existence of Atlantis - is to find it

When someone hands you a map marked, “Atlantis. Dig here” it’s not a bad place to start.

Good luck in your search - you may wish to establish contact with archaeologists in Argentina who are based in the provinces of Santa Fe,
Entre Rios and Corrientos.

Thanks for the advice. You’ve been a relatively good sport about all this and it is appreciated.

-Doug

edit on 3-20-2012 by Doug Fisher because: Gave you a star for the Calvert mention. Thanks.

Bacon may have used that term in his Atlantis novel I don't recall now

It would be fairly easy to test the bowl for age using thermoluminescent testing

If Atlantis was a bronze age culture that Plato described it would have left traces everywhere; especially with its alleged naval power, you'd find
its pottery, and resource mining pretty much everywhere in that part of SA. One doesn't.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Well said, however given the nature of civilizations the complete lack of any artifacts anywhere in SA, Europe or Africa (assuming Plato's story had
any validity) that can be assigned to Atlantis seems to point to your exhaustive work being yet another case for Atlantis that goes no where despite
the comparative geography.

Not even comparative geography. Hans.

Last I checked, South America was not underwater.

Harte

Within this long rambling submission I actually did manage to address that very subject.

Perhaps one of the most intriguing examples of a modification occurring sometime after the tale was transmitted to Solon and before Plato put it in
writing pertains to what is likely the most conspicuous of discrepancies in this theory. Unlike Atlantis, South America still sits above the sea...

Should you be interested, you can find the reason for this particularly obvious discrepancy here: Sinking Atlantis

Originally posted by OGOldGreg
Didn't someone find remains of Atlantis Aoff the coast of Spain last year???

Atlantis has been 'found' pretty much everywhere except inner Mongolia and I'm sure there is a guy in Ulan Bator working on that right at this moment.
Most are quite creative and all fail on the same point; no archaeological confirmation.

In the case of Spain there is actually a habitation there, but not Plato's Atlantis as he described it

If there was so much mud/liquefaction to be impassable as plato described, and the entire city sunk in mud instead of just water, then finding any
archaeological evidence might be difficult, as it could all be 50-100+ feet underground, but IF it is, if someone managed to find it, I think it would
be perfectly preserved still, bodies and all.

any evidence of that happening recently in that area of south america?

Now, in the island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire, which had rule over the whole island and several others, as well as over
parts of the continent; and, besides these, they subjected the parts of Libya within the Columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as
Tyrrhenia.

Tells you your looking not for just a city but an entire country or in reality an empire, so even if the capitol sank what happened to all those
outliers?

As i stated earlier regarding this, I said I'd poke around.
You may certainly be correct in regard to nicotine, as research on the topic indicates samples at levels indicative of dietary ingestion as opposed to
habitual use as is want to occur once one gets hold of some good stogies.

Regarding the coca product, as it stands, the jury is still out, and results continue to be independently verified by many numbers of puzzled
scientists, even those initially detracting from the first results highlighted by the paper published in 1992 through the respected German scientific
periodical, Naturwissenschaften, by toxicologist Svetlana Balabanova.

HERE is a basic summary of events at least up to the
posting of this article posted in Oct. 2011.

Granted, while I ascribe to potential contact and trade between old world and new well outside orthodoxy, some of these papers though discussing the
subject and asking questions detract from that stance, or simply state there is no other supporting evidence in that direction.

Thus, the question still stands: How did coca product with such prevalence permeate Egyptian, African, and Asian Continental societies?
Flipping back an answer that 'some other kind of plant with coca-like qualities must have existed' similar to stating some very vague unnamed,
un-sourced plants contain levels of nicotine sufficient to cause positive results around the African, European and even Asian continents, is not
acceptable.
Scientists working in this field, with hands on regarding this subject are asking the same questions, and I've yet to see any of these plants named,
though vague elusive responses from detractors assert these plants do indeed exist.
Some sources that are not vague, or any kind of elusive would be nice. I'm more than reasonable.

Faced with good data, I'm more than willing to question my own stance. I hope so far I've already demonstrated such.

As it stands though, from resources over the past year, the question about Coca product in old world mummies still stands, is still quite very
relevant, but, the mainstay of orthodox is extremely reluctant to explore the subject further, and seemingly content to let the unsettling question
lay on a shelf for the next generation of bright eyed young historians, anthropologists, and other such to come along and risk the ruination of their
careers on.

Edit: I've also just noticed your 'Howdy' response.

Off topic, but have you been looking at some of my posts/work?

I want to add and be clear that I'm not entirely on board with a subscription to the assertion that Atlantis was a singular city/state/culture/empire
as described in Pato's telling.
It would be nice, and quite very interesting for sure, but, lack of evidence of such as you've asserted supports this as a lower probability.
As I think I've stated before, I'm more in favor of a subscription to the postulation that 'Atlantis' was more a generalized term used to describe
primarily, the South American Continent as a whole where telling and retelling of this 'Atlantis' over generations until reaching Plato picked up
assertions, embroidery, biases, and other warping that fashioned a generalized continental geography into a romantically epic empire.

My argument is more from the stance that there was sustained organized trade contact between old and new world cultures, if only for certain
perishable/consumable products unique to the Americas that don't have the best of shelf lives as pottery and hard good do. Import of Coca, tobacco,
distilled/fermented drinks from maize, and other such unique products may have been more economical for such long and hazardous voyages as opposed to
collecting heavy hard goods like pottery, gold, etc that could be found in more convenient ports of call.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Well said, however given the nature of civilizations the complete lack of any artifacts anywhere in SA, Europe or Africa (assuming Plato's story had
any validity) that can be assigned to Atlantis seems to point to your exhaustive work being yet another case for Atlantis that goes no where despite
the comparative geography.

Not even comparative geography. Hans.

Last I checked, South America was not underwater.

Harte

Within this long rambling submission I actually did manage to address that very subject.

Perhaps one of the most intriguing examples of a modification occurring sometime after the tale was transmitted to Solon and before Plato put it in
writing pertains to what is likely the most conspicuous of discrepancies in this theory. Unlike Atlantis, South America still sits above the sea...

Should you be interested, you can find the reason for this particularly obvious discrepancy here: Sinking Atlantis

-Doug

As you stated about others' attempts at reconciling this, yours is "overthought and contrived."

Glad you use Critias, anyway. Speaking of which:

He also begat and brought up five pairs of twin male children; and dividing the island of Atlantis into ten portions, he gave to the
first-born of the eldest pair his mother's dwelling and the surrounding allotment, which was the largest and best, and made him king over the rest;
the others he made princes, and gave them rule over many men, and a large territory. And he named them all; the eldest, who was the first king, he
named Atlas, and after him the whole island and the ocean were called Atlantic. To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his
lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world,
he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus. Of the second pair
of twins he called one Ampheres, and the other Evaemon. To the elder of the third pair of twins he gave the name Mneseus, and Autochthon to the one
who followed him. Of the fourth pair of twins he called the elder Elasippus, and the younger Mestor. And of the fifth pair he gave to the elder the
name of Azaes, and to the younger that of Diaprepes. All these and their descendants for many generations were the inhabitants and rulers of divers
islands in the open sea; and also, as has been already said, they held sway in our direction over the country within the Pillars as far as Egypt
and Tyrrhenia.

The first two bolded portions clearly indicate that at least part of Atlantis was in the Eastern Atlantic ocean, near Cadiz, Spain.

The third bolded portion indicates that Atlantis held sway over almost the entire Med.

So, where is the evidence of this maritime power? Are you asking people to believe that, 11,000 years ago, there was a mighty navy that made the trip
all the way from S.A. to the Med and took over what, at that time, was nothing worth taking over?

Also:

The leader was required to furnish for the war the sixth portion of a war-chariot, so as to make up a total of ten thousand chariots; also two
horses and riders for them, and a pair of chariot-horses without a seat, accompanied by a horseman who could fight on foot carrying a small
shield, and having a charioteer who stood behind the man-at-arms to guide the two horses; also, he was bound to furnish two heavy armed soldiers, two
slingers, three stone-shooters and three javelin-men, who were light-armed, and four sailors to make up the complement of twelve hundred ships. Such
was the military order of the royal city-the order of the other nine governments varied, and it would be wearisome to recount their several
differences.

I just wanted to say thank you for putting together so much material and presenting it here. This is one topic that I researched a great deal in the
past, but its been some time since I revisited it. I look forward to going through the material with the care and focus that it deserves.

You're dreaming here, or cherrypicking, which is almost the same thing.

Harte

Horses (Equus)continued to evolve and develop for another six million years after Pliohippus and became very successful, spreading throughout
North America. At some point some of them crossed into the Old World via the Arctic-Asia land bridge. Then, suddenly, no one is absolutely certain
why, between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, Equus disappeared from North and South America. Various theories have been advanced including destruction
by drought, disease, or extinction as a result of hunting by growing human populations. At any rate, the horse was gone from the western hemiphere.
The submergence of the Bering land bridge prevented any return migration from the Old World or Asia, and the horse was not seen again on its native
continent until the Spanish explorers brought horses by ship in the sixteenth century.

After all the work OP has done, I think deserves more respect in addressing any doubt or objections. Is disgusting the arrogance you show in a lot of
threads at the point that i wish ATS had a button that could hide undesired users, lame posts and stuck up (empty headed) individuals.

Thanks for taking the time to read some of the thread and offer your comments.

As you stated about others' attempts at reconciling this, yours is "overthought and contrived."

As stated in the end of the first half of that section, if today we are willing to shrink and move a continent from the Atlantic into the
Mediterranean to have an ancient tale conform with our worldview, why should we not expect that Solon would similarly adjust an ancient tale to
conform to his worldview. There is actually a very clear simplicity to this.

"To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles,
facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world, he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is
Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus."

The first two bolded portions clearly indicate that at least part of Atlantis was in the Eastern Atlantic ocean, near Cadiz, Spain.

As shown already in the case of the plain, "facing" or being "towards" are merely directional terms not locative terms. As it would apply to South
America, it would suggest that Atlas' twin inhabited an area around Brazil, maybe on the Amazon. For example, Chile faces away while Brazil faces
toward Gades. As for the inclusion of Gades, it appears to only be a secondary point of reference lying in the vicinity of the pillars that was added
to Solon's description because it was a notable tie-in acknowledging it was named after Atlas' twin, or so Solon supposed.

The third bolded portion indicates that Atlantis held sway over almost the entire Med.

So, where is the evidence of this maritime power? Are you asking people to believe that, 11,000 years ago, there was a mighty navy that made the trip
all the way from S.A. to the Med and took over what, at that time, was nothing worth taking over?

Chariots and horses? In South America?

As also mentioned by Critias, Solon did take certain liberties when retelling the account. To what extent it is hard to say, but the horses and
chariots are part of the same passage where Solon introduces the Atlantean use of triremes. Like the triremes, the horses and chariots may very well
have been added to the tale by Solon in order to present his fellow Athenians with a recognizable and formidable combatant.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.